No, that's not what Section 12 means. Moreover, Section 9 is pretty clear that you can use Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL with any other version of the OGL.
The OP is possibly wrong about why
OGL 1.0A and OGL 1.1 are potentially incompatible, but they are not wrong about the incompatibility (section 2 says you may not add extra restrictions and releasing it under OGL 1.1 would be adding extra restrictions). IANAL, TINLA.
I'm not seeing how the sky is falling here.
Can we have a moratorium on this phrase please? This is an elfgame forum; anything on a "sky falling" level would obviously be off topic and probably against the rules. There is plenty of room for this to be a bad thing for consumers, for 3PP, and I suspect for WotC too without reaching that mythical standard.
No version of the OGL has been "open content meaning you can use it in the manner you see fit" - every version of the OGL to date has had multiple restrictions and conditions that a publisher must adhere to in order to be in compliance (not using Product Identity without express permission, for example)
Since PI is explicitly not Open Content, that is not a restriction on doing what you please with Open Content. There are
restrictions of course, by definition because it is a licence rather than just releasing stuff as PD, but that is not one of them.
At a minimum you enter your revenue on their website (starting at 50k) and once the number you enter exceeds 750k they have a form on which you can transfer money to them, just like any webstore offers. They can even prefill the amount
That is not the minimum they could require (which is "nothing", as per the current OGL). It is also not the minimum they have announced, given the requirement "let [WotC] know what you’re offering for sale".
I’ve heard WotC and then Hasbro has been killing D&D for 22 years now.
I do not think WotC's recent and proposed actions will kill D&D, but I do think they will put quite a dent in it.
You don't need an OGL for DMs Guild, and it seems to have been pretty successful.
Which is another point against this change. WotC already have one closed licence which has been pretty successful. Why do they need to turn the OGL into another?
I am not a great fan of Pathfinder (having played it for a couple of years), but I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how it can be interpreted as a negative...
I can easily see how it counts as a negative for WotC
. OTOH, I cannot see how it counts as "support for OneD&D", which was the matter in question.
For those who publish OGC but make less than 700k - Nothing changed other than needing that Content Creator badge (see below)
Not true. If the OGL 1.1 is implemented as announced, everyone using it for commercial products will have to keep track of their OGL-related sales for compliance reasons, even if they do not actually hit the threshold (which is 50k not 700). Plus the vague but potentially terrifying requiremnents to pre-register and tell them "what you’re offering for sale" which are not revenue-dependant.
Yes, because requiring an email when you put something up for publication (let them know what you're offering for sale) and a once a year report of how much you made from selling OGL material (a number you will have to know to file your taxes) is a huge deal?
Even if that were true, making a version of the OGL that is not open is a pretty huge deal. And we can be reasonably confident that that is not true (for example, filing your taxes does not require you to account for whether income is OGL-related in an jurisdiction I am aware of).
several definitions of an open license require that there is no fee associated with the use...
Including any and all definitions that are descriptively useful.
The quote from the OGF says all of the game must be available via the license. In the original OGL that is untrue.
It says nothing of the sort. It says the "licensed content"; there is not requirement stated or even implied for the licensed content to be the whole game.
And I reject the notion that one must buy a product (and/or read it in full) before one is allowed to have an opinion about it.
Agreed. Ever notice how accusations of "you haven't read it therefore you are wrong about it" are almost never accompanied about any specifics about what you are wrong about?